More than the SSPX bishops were excommunicated?

[keepitreal]

There is a Neo-Conservative, who claims that those who “supported” SSPX are still excommunicated. Here is what he says:

“The decree would only effect these few bishops, not the SSPX priests or those lay people who have crossed the line into “support”. You know who you are. But, logically speaking, if the excommunication is latae sentiae, and they then refuse to submit to the Magisterium, wouldn’t they automatically incur another latae sentiae excommunication?”

Is this true, that the SSPX priests and faithful are STILL excommunicated?

 

[JaMc]

My understanding was that: (1) the Bishops were excommunicated, though the SSPX disputes this; (2) the priests are/were suspended, but not excommunicated; and (3) at most, the parishoners would be in a state of Mortal Sin for not fulfilling their Sunday obligation (if there were another Catholic Mass available), though the SSPX also disputes this, and/or for receiving illicit (but valid) sacraments. However, regarding the latter, the parishoners may not even be in a state of mortal sin if they are attending to experience the traditional Mass, and not out of disrespect/schism.

Now, their status is as it was from ~1975 to 1988 - their priests and bishops are merely suspended, but not excommunicated, and the status re: the parishoners is the same.

However, someone can correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[keepitreal]

My understanding was that: (1) the Bishops were excommunicated, though the SSPX disputes this; (2) the priests are/were suspended, but not excommunicated; and (3) at most, the parishoners would be in a state of Mortal Sin for not fulfilling their Sunday obligation (if there were another Catholic Mass available), though the SSPX also disputes this, and/or for receiving illicit (but valid) sacraments. However, regarding the latter, the parishoners may not even be in a state of mortal sin if they are attending to experience the traditional Mass, and not out of disrespect/schism.

Now, their status is as it was from ~1975 to 1988 - their priests and bishops are merely suspended, but not excommunicated, and the status re: the parishoners is the same.

However, someone can correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Harrison]

unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm

The link above should answer your questions. I do not see anything in that letter stating that lay people will incur excommunication for supporting the sspx, but that “If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin”.

Edit…Actually I did not answer your question correctly. The decree lifting the excommunications of the four bishops of the SSPX is that and only that, as far as I know. There is no mention of the priests of the society or the lay members.

 

[Extempore]

unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm

The link above should answer your questions. I do not see anything in that letter stating that lay people will incur excommunication for supporting the sspx, but that “If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin”.

Another argument against the laity being in schism is that it is nearly impossibly for a lay attendee of the SSPX to attend out of desire to be in schism as they don’t believe the SSPX to be in schism in the first place. Its a bit incompatible to the mindset.

 

[Keepthefaith07]

Another argument against the laity being in schism is that it is nearly impossibly for a lay attendee of the SSPX to attend out of desire to be in schism as they don’t believe the SSPX to be in schism in the first place. Its a bit incompatible to the mindset.

You folks are something else, It's happening. You can't stop it. The SSPX is not now or ever was in Schism. In light of this months events, the fact that you folks still continue to calumniate the SSPX and now even the laity who support it, is evidence of your bad will and lack of charity.

 

[palmas85]

You folks are something else, It’s happening. You can’t stop it. The SSPX is not now or ever was in Schism. In light of this months events, the fact that you folks still continue to calumniate the SSPX and now even the laity who support it, is evidence of your bad will and lack of charity.

It is actually evidence, very compelling evidence of the sheer hatred that many of these progressives have for the SSPX and by extension any person or group that favors the more traditional aspects of Catholicism rather than accepting wholeheartedly the progressive agenda.

The fact that the Holy Father has taken this step means nothing to them at all. Absolutely nothing.

 

[keepitreal]

It is actually evidence, very compelling evidence of the sheer hatred that many of these progressives have for the SSPX and by extension any person or group that favors the more traditional aspects of Catholicism rather than accepting wholeheartedly the progressive agenda.

The fact that the Holy Father has taken this step means nothing to them at all. Absolutely nothing.

I agree! That’s why I began the thread. The Neo-Conservative establishment cannot even SAY that the excommunications have been lifted; they have to continue the hate at all costs, and just long for the “good ol days” of Pope Paul VI and JP II, when the Novus Ordo was mandatory and a “sign” of “communion”, and the SSPX were “schismatics”. Now, they seem to be saying that the SSPX is STILL excommuncated because those that “agreed” with the SSPX were automatically excommunicated, and those excommunications have not been lifted.

 

[Extempore]

You folks are something else, It’s happening. You can’t stop it. The SSPX is not now or ever was in Schism. In light of this months events, the fact that you folks still continue to calumniate the SSPX and now even the laity who support it, is evidence of your bad will and lack of charity.

Um, I think you seriously misread me here. This was probably due to my poor use of grammar to distinguish what I meant by “inconsistent mindset.”

Let me clarify: The argument that the SSPX laity can be in schism by virtue of “adopting a schizmatic mindset” doesn’t hold water because you simply won’t find (or, at least, I haven’t encountered at the chapel I attend) anyone who would ever say that a schism exists. Therefore, for someone to say 'I am attending the SSPX chapel because I wish to be in schism/separate myself from Rome" is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Society (namely, that no schism ever truly existed).

Hope that clarifies things. Lets not get TOO fired up over this.

For those still unconvinced as to the status of the laity, I might suggest a google search for the “Hawaii six” to see how Rome responded to the claim that the laity were excommunicated by virtue of attending an SSPX chapel.

 

[Brigadoon]

Is it possible that the"neo-conservative" is referring to the excommunication of SSPX by Bp. Bruskewitz in Lincoln?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

“Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.”

It doesn’t say you get excommunicated for “wanting to be -” or “believing yourself to be” in schism, it declares the penalty for “formal adherence” to the schism, which it says exists. So you can’t rule out the possibility of other excommunicates just because they don’t believe themselves to be schismatic.

The problem and the solution, however, lie in the fact that we never received a definition of formal adherence, which means it was always virtually impossible for Joe Schmoe to figure out what it took to adhere to schism, and it’s hard to force someone to reconcile themselves when you never made it clear that they were gone to begin with. So the Vatican, though upholding the possibility of other excommunicates (and, from the PCILT’s perspective, assuming their widespread existence) could nonetheless softstep the issue by retrospectively claiming to have set the bar incredibly high.

This is certainly one of Dr. Edward Peters’ problems with latae sententiae penalties, though. Think about it: we have no way of telling whether someone had incurred the penalty and thus have next to no means of reconciling those who have fallen foul of it, short of a blanket pardon which would not have achieved the effect of changing hearts as ecclesiastical censures are meant to do. All a very messy business.

At the end of the day, though, I think we should simply trust that His Holiness et al. are the ones who can decide if there is an issue and how it will be solved. I agree that there are real pastoral ramifications to the issue, but from the layman’s perspective we don’t have the tools to solve it.

 

[Lujack]

Its worth noting that even though the excommunications have been lifted, faculties have not been restored. That would mean that a parish in regular standing with Rome would still be preferable to an SSPX service.

 

[palmas85]

I agree! That’s why I began the thread. The Neo-Conservative establishment cannot even SAY that the excommunications have been lifted; they have to continue the hate at all costs, and just long for the “good ol days” of Pope Paul VI and JP II, when the Novus Ordo was mandatory and a “sign” of “communion”, and the SSPX were “schismatics”. Now, they seem to be saying that the SSPX is STILL excommuncated because those that “agreed” with the SSPX were automatically excommunicated, and those excommunications have not been lifted.

Well I would say the Holy Fathers actions pretty much proved that the progresssive belief that** ALL** members of the SSPX and those who attended their masses were excommunicated was sheer nonsense and always had been.

Think of it, the entire Society and ALL of those attending its’ Masses excommunicated and the Holy Father only lifts the excommunication on four of them? :ehh: :dts:

I don’t think so. Yet the very same people who for years have been loudly proclaiming their fealty and devotion and obedience to the Church and the Holy Father are now pretty much blatantly ignoring the obvious reality of the situation and showing their true colors.

How terribly sad it must be to live in a world as full of hatred as they do…

 

[cathguy]

You folks are something else, It’s happening. You can’t stop it. The SSPX is not now or ever was in Schism. In light of this months events, the fact that you folks still continue to calumniate the SSPX and now even the laity who support it, is evidence of your bad will and lack of charity.

I hate to have to agree with you brother… but you are correct.

I am, for better or worse, a VII Catholic. I attend the E.F. only rarely, but truly do prefer it.

The hate against the SSPX is very real however. Even though I attend a NO parish, when I tell people how much I love the E.F. I am, to put this mildly, not treated that well.

Please know that not all of us in the Novus Ordo hate you at all. In fact, the best Catholic families I know are traditional Catholic families.

Outside of Bp. Williamson’s lunacies vis a vis the holocaust and 9/11, I think the SSPX Bishops are wonderful, and I look forward and pray for the day when a normal canonical relationship can be established.

I have been especially impressed by Bp. Fellay. He is measured, calm, firm, and traditional to the core.

 

[cathguy]

Its worth noting that even though the excommunications have been lifted, faculties have not been restored. That would mean that a parish in regular standing with Rome would still be preferable to an SSPX service.

Unless there is no crucifix, the tabernacle is behind the corner, and the priest changes the words of the Mass to fit his personal tastes.

MANY MANY Novus Ordo priests do this all time, and it is illicit to do so. Valid but illicit Masses are everywhere these days; not just in SSPX chapels.

Just a thought.

 

[cathguy]

My understanding was that: (1) the Bishops were excommunicated, though the SSPX disputes this; (2) the priests are/were suspended, but not excommunicated; and (3) at most, the parishoners would be in a state of Mortal Sin for not fulfilling their Sunday obligation (if there were another Catholic Mass available), though the SSPX also disputes this, and/or for receiving illicit (but valid) sacraments. However, regarding the latter, the parishoners may not even be in a state of mortal sin if they are attending to experience the traditional Mass, and not out of disrespect/schism.

Now, their status is as it was from ~1975 to 1988 - their priests and bishops are merely suspended, but not excommunicated, and the status re: the parishoners is the same.

However, someone can correct me if I’m wrong.

Dear Br.

The laity do not incur mortal sin for missing their Sunday obligation. The Mass in the SSPX chapels is valid but illicit, and Rome spoke on this issue and confirmed that laity attending SSPX masses fulfill the Sunday obligation.

However, I hasten to add, they recommended against the practice.

God bless you.

 

[Lujack]

Unless there is no crucifix, the tabernacle is behind the corner, and the priest changes the words of the Mass to fit his personal tastes.

MANY MANY Novus Ordo priests do this all time, and it is illicit to do so. Valid but illicit Masses are everywhere these days; not just in SSPX chapels.

Just a thought.

Look, I’ve been in almost every church near my home in New Jersey. I’ve never seen any of this. Even the biggest, most auditorium style church I’ve been in had the tabernacle in the right place, a crucifix on the wall, and Mass said according to the rubrics.

I don’t know where all these abuses are coming from, because I’ve never seen any of them.

 

[JReducation]

There is a Neo-Conservative, who claims that those who “supported” SSPX are still excommunicated. Here is what he says:

“The decree would only effect these few bishops, not the SSPX priests or those lay people who have crossed the line into “support”. You know who you are. But, logically speaking, if the excommunication is latae sentiae, and they then refuse to submit to the Magisterium, wouldn’t they automatically incur another latae sentiae excommunication?”

Is this true, that the SSPX priests and faithful are STILL excommunicated?

Only the five bishops were excommunicated for violating Church law, Archbishop Lefevre (RIP) and the four men whom he consecrated. The other priests and deacons were not excommunicated, because they did not violate Canon Law or defy an order from the Holy Father. They were suspended for following excommunicated bishops.

The question is a little more complex. Only those persons who supported the consecration of bishops are excommunicated. This does not include those persons who attend mass at the SSPX chapels because they find spiritual benefits in their liturgy.

It’s a matter of degree. The deeper that you became involved with the Lefebvrist movement, the greater your chances of being excommunicated as well. That’s more difficult to measure, because it’s hard to tell how many people really supported Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions and how many simply get some spiritual benefit from the mass.

That is a subjective situation and will have to be sorted out between the soul and God.

It is also true that if the four bishops refuse to submit to the authority of the Pope and to those part of the Vatican II that the Pope holds to be binding on the Church, then there is room for a future excommunication. That has not happened yet. We should not get ahead of ourselves.

JR